View Single Post
  #218   Report Post  
Old August 3rd 09, 11:11 AM posted to uk.transport.london
[email protected] rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,877
Default These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 06:44:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:02:43 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

The 50% requirement means you are talking about the Alternative Vote
system which is being actively considered by "New" Labour.
The problem with it is that, on a national basis, it would produce
results that are even further removed from true proportional
representation than the current system.


Single transferable vote, actually. Which would be fine, I think, as
long as it was made clear to people that they did not have to put a
number against every candidate. Five candidates, express your first
and second preference and after that "none of the above".


I think you have pretty well described New Labour's Alternative Vote
system, which is likely to be more unfair than the current system.

The trouble is that none of the current political parties can be
trusted to come up with a fair system. Their grip on power is only
possible because of unfairness.

Didn't Tony Blair commission a report on electoral reform from Lord
(Roy) Jenkins, then bin it because he didn't like the
recommendations?

The British Government has applied PR systems to other countries, for
example STV to Ireland and Malta. They still have the system so can't have
been that bad a choice. Indeed, its success in the Irish Republic forced
the British Government to restore STV to Northern Ireland in 1973.

STV's greatest strength is that it is party-blind. You don't need parties
to get fair representation but if you have them they get the share the
voters give them and no more.

--
Colin Rosenstiel